>>> Tribute
to the News Media. The MRC ended its "Dishonor Awards: Roasting the
Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2001," with a
ten-minute video tribute to network coverage of September 11th and its
immediate aftermath. You can now view the stirring video, produced for the
MRC by Horizons Television, online. MRC Webmaster Mez Djouadi has added it
to the Dishonor Awards page. To watch it via RealPlayer, go to:http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/nq/dishonor2002/dishonor2002c.html#tribute

NBC
on Thursday night maintained the Enron scandal "paper trail"
leads "right into Vice President Cheney's office." While ABC
and CBS focused their Enron stories on the revelation that the board of
directors had been informed about how the company was hiding losses in
artificial partnerships, and ABC added a story about Enron's continued
use of expensive corporate jets, NBC insisted upon portraying Enron as a
Bush administration scandal.

Setting up their story of how Enron supposedly
influenced Bush administration reaction to the California power problems,
anchor Tom Brokaw referred to allegations that "the Houston company
kept California's energy prices artificially high during the power
crisis last year" by convincing the Bush team to not impose price
controls on wholesale electricity prices.

So, by Brokaw's reasoning,
government-mandated price controls are natural and the free market is
"artificial"?

In the subsequent story, reporter Jim Avila
recounted all the money Enron had donated to the Bush family and then
relayed the claims of unnamed liberal activists: "Critics charge that
investment bought Enron access and say this memo obtained by the San
Francisco Chronicle, from Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney during a
private meeting April 17th of last year, is exhibit A."

Brokaw introduced the January 31 NBC Nightly
News story, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth:
"On the
Enron front tonight, federal energy regulators say they will investigate
whether the Houston company kept California's energy prices artificially
high during the power crisis last year. Enron officials insist they did
nothing wrong but, as NBC's Jim Avila reports tonight, before Enron went
bust, it left a long paper trail. And some of that paper appears to lead
right into Vice President Cheney's office."

Avila began, over video of Lay talking to
George H.W. Bush as they stood a few feet behind George W. Bush in the
stands of a stadium: "Ken Lay, long-time friend to the first
President Bush, and together with Enron, the single largest political
contributor to the second, donating nearly $800,000 over the last seven
years to George W.'s campaigns and inauguration. Critics charge that
investment bought Enron access and say this memo obtained by the San
Francisco Chronicle, from Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney during a
private meeting April 17th of last year, is exhibit A."
David Lazarus,
San Francisco Chronicle: "It essentially belies the
administration's claims that Ken Lay enjoyed no special favors or no
special access to the White House."
Avila:
"Here's the context: California suffers six days of rolling
blackouts after capping what retailers can charge for electricity while
wholesalers like Enron are left free to hike prices. Cheney chairs the
President's energy task force looking for solutions. California now
wants caps on wholesalers; Enron does not. At that April meeting, a month
before President Bush announces his energy policy, Ken Lay allegedly gives
Cheney this eight-point memo. Point three asks the administration to
reject wholesale price caps."
Phil Flynn,
Alaron Trading Corporation: "There weren't any surprises in the
memo. I mean, basically, Mr. Lay said, hey, we're against prices caps.
And basically, so was the Bush administration."

Despite that obviously point undermining the
premise of NBC's conspiracy, Avila plowed ahead: "But the complaint
from Californians who wanted price caps was that they didn't get to make
their case and Enron did. Even California's senior Senator, Democrat
Dianne Feinstein, says she tried three times during the crisis to talk to
President Bush and was rebuffed."
Senator Dianne
Feinstein: "Enron had the ability to get in, but I didn't."

Maybe she should have sent a memo.

Avila continued: "Vice President
Cheney's staff tells NBC News he does not remember receiving the memo,
and that there's no record of it at the White House. His spokeswoman,
Mary Matalin, tells NBC News the administration has always been against
price caps."
Mary Matalin:
"Of course we consulted with Ken Lay, but the agenda for the
preparation of the energy report and recommendations to the President was
sound energy policy, not Ken Lay's agenda."
Avila
concluded: "Tonight some Democrats are not convinced, prompting
investigations in both California and Washington."

Speaking
of charges Enron bought political influence, liberals, echoed by the
Washington press corps, insist that the Enron case demonstrates the need
to get corporate influence-buying out of politics by enacting
"campaign finance reform."

A new study, however, by the far-left U.S.
Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), documented how the bills to curb
soft money donations would have had little impact on Enron's recent
donations. But don't expect many in the media, who regularly cite PIRG
when the group denounces conservative policies, to mention the PIRG study
which undermines the media's case for McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan.
(PIRG advocates much more drastic hard money donation limits.)

The AP wrote a story on January 30 about the
PIRG numbers and USA Today ran a short story on page 3 of the Money
section on January 31.

On its Web site PIRG listed its key findings:

-- "More than 62 percent of Enron's and
Arthur Andersen's combined $11.2 million in political contributions since
the 1990 election cycle were made with 'hard money.' The Shays-Meehan
bill significantly increases hard money limits."

-- "Kenneth and Linda Lay gave $882,580
in hard and soft money combined since the 1990 election cycle. Under
Shays-Meehan's and McCain-Feingold's increased contribution limits, the
Lays would have been able to give $975,000 in hard money alone during that
period."

-- "Enron employees have made $508,000 in
$1,000 contributions since the 1990 election cycle. Arthur Andersen's
employees made $294,000 in $1,000 contributions during the same period.
McCain-Feingold's increased contribution limits would allow these wealthy
executives to double their contributions."

-- "Through giving to state parties,
issue groups, or independent expenditures, Enron and Andersen could have
spent the same amount of soft money under Shays-Meehan as they did
previously."

-- "Since 1997, Enron's and Andersen's
lobbying expenditures dwarfed their campaign contributions. Enron has
spent more than $7.5 million on lobbying since 1997, nearly double their
$3.8 million in campaign contributions over the same period. Andersen
spent $9.6 million on lobbying, compared to $2.8 million on campaigns over
the same period."

As recounted in the January 28 CyberAlert,
CBS's Dan Rather and NBC's Katie Couric on Friday used the Enron scandal
as an excuse to push for campaign finance "reform."

Rather pleaded:
"In tonight's Eye on America, CBS gives you an in-depth look at the
sudden revival of congressional interest in legislation that's been killed
more times than Dracula: Legislation for serious campaign finance reform.
In the wake of the Enron fiasco, will Congress finally put its votes where
its mouth is?"

Earlier Friday, Today co-host Katie Couric
conveyed her wishes to MSNBC/CNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews: "What
does this portend for, for campaign finance reform? Could this be the
straw that breaks the camel's back that makes people say, 'Enough is
enough! This has got to happen! We don't care what those folks on Capitol
Hill say?'"

So far, not a word on either show about the
evidence that more regulation would have done nothing to curb what Rather
and Couric find so disturbing. If the media ever do take up the PIRG
analysis, however, they'll probably use it not to show how another
regulatory scheme won't solve anything but that, as PIRG maintains, the
current bills don't propose enough new regulation.

When
liberals complain, CBS usually jumps. As they did Thursday night in
framing an entire story around the agenda of pro-abortion groups upset
that the Bush administration has dared to let states include unborn
children in a health care program for the poor.

Dan Rather intoned: "There's a growing
political storm over a new policy by President Bush that expands prenatal
care for the poor but also reignites arguments about a woman's right to
choose abortion." John Roberts noted how the decision would
"play well with conservatives," but that "abortion rights
advocates see it in sharply different terms, what they call an assault on
women's rights under the guise of compassion."

Over on ABC, World News Tonight held itself to
this short item read by Peter Jennings: "The Health Secretary says
that fetuses will be classified as unborn children and eligible for
government health care. This will help low income women, but it concerns
supporters of abortion rights. They don't want the Bush administration
to classify fetuses as human beings."

What a nefarious scam, to "classify
fetuses as human beings." As opposes to what?

Back to the January 31 CBS Evening News,
Roberts began the story which Rather had introduced: "In a move bound
to reignite the abortion debate, the Bush administration today declared
that a developing fetus may be classified as an unborn child and eligible
for federally funded health care."
Tommy
Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services: "This is going to
help poor mothers be able to take care of their unborn children."
Roberts:
"The proposal would expand the definition of a child under the
Children's Health Insurance program, which currently covers children
from birth to age 19. Under the Bush plan, states would have the option to
include fetuses in their program, which would make the mother eligible for
prenatal and delivery care. The administration heralded the plan as a way
to provide prenatal coverage to the 10.9 million women of child-bearing
age who don't have insurance. But abortion rights advocates see it in
sharply different terms, what they call an assault on women's rights
under the guise of compassion."
Laurie Rubiner,
National Partnership for Women and Families: "The President himself
has reiterated that he is anti-choice in many different ways and has
stated that he would like to make abortion illegal in all
circumstances."
Roberts:
"The move will certainly play well with conservatives, especially
important in this election year. But the health secretary said today it
has nothing to do with an anti-abortion agenda."
Thompson:
"How anybody can now turn this into a pro-choice or pro-life
argument, I can't understand it."
Roberts
concluded: "Abortion rights advocates say there are plenty of ways
that the government could provide prenatal care for pregnant women without
officially conferring personhood on a fetus, but this is one battle that
they are likely to lose. The President can change the rules with little
more than a stroke of his executive pen."

When
Jordan's King Abdullah refused to denounce the Bush administration for
shunning Yasser Arafat and not helping the Palestinians, CBS's Bryant
Gumbel repeatedly pressed him to do so.

On Thursday's Early Show, MRC analyst Brian
Boyd observed that Gumbel recounted how a Saudi Prince "chastised the
Bush administration for doing nothing to help the Palestinians -- their
words -- 'suffering at the hands of Israel,'" asked Abdullah if
Palestinians have "a right to blame the Bush administration for doing
little or nothing to help them?" and, noting how "this
administration has shunned Yasser Arafat," wanted to know if Abdullah
thought "that's a mistake?"

Gumbel set up the top of the 7am half hour
interview with Abdullah, who appeared via satellite from Washington, DC:
"Tomorrow morning Jordan's King Abdullah will meet with President
Bush for a working breakfast at the White House. Hostilities in the
Mideast as well as the war on terrorism will be atop the agenda. His Royal
Highness is already in Washington. Your Majesty, good morning...What do
you hope to accomplish tomorrow morning in your meeting with the
President?"

After Abdullah talked about exchanging views
on the deterioration of relations between Palestinians and Israel and
looking at reducing the violence, Gumbel inquired: "Crown Prince
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia this week chastised the Bush administration for
doing nothing to help the Palestinians -- their words -- 'suffering at
the hands of Israel.' Is his outrage warranted?"

Abdullah agreed that the "Arab
street" is frustrated at seeing the "suffering of
Palestinians" and that the recent woman bomber shows the "level
of desperation" of Palestinians.

Gumbel pressed Abdullah to blame the U.S.:
"But have they a right to blame the Bush administration for doing
little or nothing to help them?"
Abdullah
discredited Gumbel's premise: "No. The Bush administration
obviously has been trying to play a very balanced view, they've always
been involved in trying to reach out to both sides...very quietly working
behind the scenes to try and get both parties together..."
Gumbel was
undeterred from his agenda: "You say a 'balanced' approach even
though this administration has shunned Yasser Arafat. Do you not think
that's a mistake?"
Abdullah put
the burden on Arafat, explaining terrorist acts make it difficult for the
Bush administration to deal with him.

Gumbel moved on: "Let me speak of some
other matters with you, one of Jordan's key roles since 9/11 has been the
sharing of intelligence information because you have very good human
information on the ground. What is your view about how many countries, if
any, have been implicated in the al Qaeda network?"

Gumbel followed up: "Well, I ask you that
because, as you know, on Tuesday night in his State of the Union message
the President singled out Iraq along with Iran and North Korea as being
part of what he called an 'axis of evil.' Your nation has very close
relations with Iraq. Do you think there is merit to the
charge?""
Abdullah said
his nation has always advocated "dialogue over armed conflict"
and would prefer to try to rehabilitate Iraq.
That prompted
Gumbel: "But, as you know, this administration continues to talk of
moving aggressively against Iraq. To your mind how big a mistake would
that be?"
Abdullah
suggested it will be very difficult because of the frustration the Arab
street feels over the Palestinians and so the Bush policy could create
"immense instability in the region."

Not only
did NBC's Today hire the liberal regulatory advocate Ann Brown,
Clinton's Chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as a
reporter, on Thursday morning Today gave Brown a platform from which to
lobby the agency she formerly headed. Today's Ann Curry really piled it
on, praising her activist efforts to impose more regulations: "Ann
Brown, working so hard to protect us from faulty products."

Curry's endorsement of Brown's regulatory
zeal came after Today aired a story by Brown about the recall of some
humidifiers. MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens noticed that Today co-host Curry
then gave Brown a forum to publicize her personal efforts to lobby the
agency she formerly oversaw. Curry noted: "We should also mention
that your non-profit organization is trying to do something even further.
Is proposing legislation so that more people are protected from faulty
products. Explain."
Brown
complied: "Well, the recall system and my non-profit is called
S.A.F.E and we are looking for a safer America for everyone. The recall
system has a loophole. When people get products, particularly children's
products or small electrical products you know that terrible card that
they come with that has all that return card, with all that information
about demographics and, and how much money you make. Nobody sends them
back. We are proposing that the CPSC be required companies, require
companies to have a recall card, just simple. It will already be postage
pre-paid, it will have the product on it with the number and all you have
to do is write your name and address, it will be kept secret and they mail
that back or do it online. And then when there's a recall people can be
individually contacted."
Curry then
gushed: "Ann Brown, working so hard to protect us from faulty
products. Thank you Ann, this morning."

And you wonder why liberals love campaign
finance "reform." While they and the Washington press corps fret
over undue influence of corporate donations and former government
officials lobbying the insiders they once directed, they have the news
media to promote their liberal policy prescriptions.

"You
need to hear what she has to say," declared Good Morning America
co-host Diane Sawyer before a laudatory profile on Thursday of Jane Fonda
and her crusade to counter conservatives as she advocates access for
minors to contraceptives.

Fonda argued: "In this country, you
think, 'Oh my gosh, if we tell kids how to avoid getting pregnant, it's
going to make them have sex.' Come on! I mean, take your head out of the
sand. Come on! It is so disrespectful to young people."
ABC's Nancy
Snyderman endorsed the sentiment: "Telling words from a woman and
icon who went from acting to activism, a woman who says she didn't begin
to find her real self until well after she hit middle age..."

Sawyer set up the January 31 profile caught by
the MRC's Jessica Anderson: "And Jane Fonda joins us now,
provocative as ever, talking about President Bush, talking about her
celebrated and now-ended marriage to the high-voltage Ted Turner, and her
passion for improving the lives of young girls around the world."
Sawyer insisted: "You need to hear what she has to say."

Nancy Snyderman handled the pre-taped
interview: "This is the Jane Fonda you thought you knew. This is the
Jane Fonda you need to know, working with young women in Third World
countries, giving them information about basic human rights, sexuality,
self-worth."

Snyderman to Fonda: "At this stage in
your life, having done so much, you're now an activist really fighting for
young women around the globe. Why?"
Fonda:
"It's taken me far too long to gain my voice and I don't want that to
be the case for other girls. When you give girls information about their
bodies, access to health care, education and rights, they become whole,
safer, they can stand up for themselves, they refuse genital mutilation,
they refuse to be married as child brides, they tend to have smaller
families and they tend to want their children to be educated and healthy
like they are. If you deny girls those things, then you begin to see
tremendous poverty, then sustainable development is impossible and you
begin to see tremendous population growth."
Snyderman:
"So whose cages should we be rattling?"
Fonda:
"We should be rattling the Bush cage and our elected senators and
congressmen, and we should say to them, 'We care about girls' and women's
rights and health, and we want you, as our representatives, to care too
and to put it into practice with money.'"
Snyderman:
"Fonda also fights for the young people in her own backyard, now in
Georgia, arming them with information and choices."
Fonda:
"In this country, you think, 'Oh my gosh, if we tell kids how to
avoid getting pregnant, it's going to make them have sex.' Come on! I
mean, take your head out of the sand. Come on! It is so disrespectful to
young people."
Snyderman:
"Telling words from a woman and icon who went from acting to
activism, a woman who says she didn't begin to find her real self until
well after she hit middle age, well after two Oscars, two marriages and
children.
"In each
decade of your life, have you continued to find more and more of this
voice that's been, sort of, simmering inside of you?"
Fonda: "Mmhmm.
I feel like some kind of an underground plant that has grown racines
[Jessica looked that up and it's the root of a Latin word] under the
surface and then, but it wasn't until I was 60 that they started to come
over, to come above ground."
Snyderman:
"At 60 you were married to Ted Turner. Was that part of this
metamorphosis?"
Fonda:
"Yeah, he was very much a part of my healing and growth, and so is
the fact that I'm not with him now. But you know something so great about
him? He understands what we're talking about. He gets it. This good old
boy from the South that my son calls 'Bubba,' with his U.N. foundation, he
understands that the future of the world depends on the empowerment of
women and girls and the slowing of population growth, which are really one
and the same."

Snyderman concluded: "Change seems the
only thing constant in Jane Fonda's life. Today at 64 and with a mission,
she is a reluctant celebrity, but she knows it is her celebrity that will
further her cause."
Fonda:
"If we can make our girls strong before they lose it as women the way
I did and so many other women did, you're changing the future of the
world."

Sawyer oozed: "Again, Jane Fonda, who has
polarized us in her history and been provocative all along and talking
about change."

From the
January 31 Late Show with David Letterman, as read by crew members on the
US Navy destroyer Thorn based in Norfolk, Virginia, the "Top Ten
Reasons Why I Love America." Copyright 2002 by Worldwide Pants, Inc.

10. Even after 225 years, it still has that new-country smell
(Operation Specialist, Ron Morris)

9. Some of our best presidents were American
(Lieutenant Jr. Grade, Erica Munzinger)

2. None of our current or former leaders live in a cave
(Gunner's Mate 3rd Class, Elijah Muse)

1. Where else could a geek like Letterman get his own show?
(Electronics Technician 3rd Class, Gregory Allen Davis II)

Tonight is Letterman's 20th anniversary
hosting a late night show. His NBC program first aired on February 1,
1982. --
Brent Baker

>>>
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers:http://www.mrc.org/donate

>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
mrccyberalert-subscribe
@topica.com. Or, you can go to:
http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.
Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE
REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to mrccyberalert@topica.com."
After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply
hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been
added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page
link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You DO
NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to
CyberAlert.
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to:
cybercomment@mrc.org.
Send problems and comments to: cybercomment@mrc.org.

>>>You
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org.
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.

FIND OUT MORE

CONNECT WITH US

The mission of the Media Research Center is to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible.